After more than two months of manoeuvring, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) yesterday approved motions to terminate the employment contracts of the Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, Deputy Chief Election Officer (DCEO) Roxanne Myers and Region Four Returning Officer (RO) Clairmont Mingo.
Speaking with Stabroek News immediately after the end of a brief meeting held on the motions, opposition-nominated Commissioner Vincent Alexander explained that the matter was determined by a vote of four in favour and three abstentions.
GECOM Chairperson Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh and the three government-nominated members voted in favour of the contract terminations, while the three opposition-nominated members of the commission abstained.
“They have been terminated in keeping with contractual provisions which provide for benefits,” Alexander said.
A statement from the Commission later explain-ed that these provisions include three months’ notice.
“In relation to the CEO, clause 9 of his contract stipulates that his services can be terminated by giving him three months’ notice or payment in lieu of [while] in relation to the DCEO and the RO their contracts stipulate that the Commission may at any time terminate their employment by giving three months’ notice or payment in lieu of. Accordingly, the officers will be paid three months’ salary in lieu inclusive of all allowances under their respective contract as well as payment for remaining days of vacation leave (if any),” the statement explained.
Justice Singh is said to have reasoned that although the three officers hold public offices, they are not public but rather contractual officers and have no security of tenure and their respective contracts stipulate the terms by which they are bound.
She added that these officers exercised the right to enter their respective contract willingly and voluntarily and were, therefore, aware of the method of termination provided by the respective contracts and that it is trite law that not even a court of law can enforce a contract for personal services against an employer terminating the contract of an employee since the proper relief for a breach in an employment contract for personal services lies in damages.
The chair’s focus on the legality of the action taken is likely a response to litigation that has followed many of the decisions made by GECOM since March 2020.
Most recently, Lowenfield approached the High Court to challenge what was initially a motion for his dismissal.
The initial motions, first laid on June 1, accused the officers of acting in a manner which had caused a loss of public confidence and public trust in the electoral process, stemming from their conduct during the March, 2020 general and regional elections process. They were also been accused of discarding their oaths of office and failing to act fairly and impartially or legally in the discharge of their duties.
While the motions against the CEO and RO listed numerous instances where they are alleged to have acted contrary to GECOM protocol and law, the motion against the DCEO accused her of aiding and abetting the CEO in his unlawful action but did not provide any particular action which was taken by the officer in furtherance of this.
In his submission to the Court, Lowenfield had argued that his contract of employment provides for two bases for termination of services–either via a three-month notice or without notice for “gross misconduct,” providing that he would be given written notice setting out clearly the reason for termination and giving the CEO an opportunity to respond.
Lowenfield’s contention had been not whether the Commission can terminate his services—as he says it has the power to so do—but rather the Commission’s intention of summarily dismissing him in breach of his contract and in a manner which he said did not lend itself to a fair hearing, given that two government-nominated commissioners, Sase Gunraj and Bibi Shadick, had filed complaints against him that served as the basis for the dismissal motion. Lowenfield advanced that the two would be biased and that he would be denied the right to a fair hearing.
One month after the CEO approached the Court, the motions against him and his co-workers were amended to cater for terminations rather than dismissal. He duly dropped his suit and the Court withdrew an injunction barring GECOM from addressing the matter on Monday.
On Tuesday when the Commission met to vote, two opposition commissioners, Alexander and Desmond Trotman, withdrew from the meeting in protest of attempts to place on record the accusations made against the officers in the termination motions.
“..During the meeting there was reference to the clauses included in the motions for dismissal. If you want to enter a cause into the record you need to have a hearing to establish that this cause exists and you need to have unbiased persons presiding over that hearing,” Alexander explained on Tuesday.
Too long
In response, Gunraj argued that GECOM could not pretend that there is no basis for the termination. Mr Alexander would like for there to be no mention of the skullduggery the whole world saw perpetuated but it is a matter of public notoriety,” he said.
Yesterday, Gunraj referred to the terminations as overdue.
“The nation has waited for too long for this to happen,” he told reporters outside his Hadfield street office.
He explained that the Commission will now move to swiftly fill the vacancies created and expressed the opinion that Local Government Elections (LGE), which are due in November, are still “imminently possible”.
“There are still a few months to go. Where there is a will there’s a way. These vacancies can be filled in a timely manner,” he stressed, before adding that whoever fills the post is expected to conduct themselves with dignity and in keeping with the dictates of the law. “They must carry out their duties without fear or favour in keeping with their oath of office,” he said.
